Or someone researches you and puts the info in a comment. People are increasingly vulnerable to someone else’s snooping.

Its a few more than 10 but easy enough.

Women under any sort of pressure is the number 1 cause of a false accussation..

I’ve read of false rape accussations because the women was late for work!!!

Whose absurdities are we talking about here? Douglas Adams’ or Joyanna Adams’?

A hitch-hike is in order.

Nobody can get any information about me unless Mike gives it out. And I trust him not to do that. Even then, Mike only has my email address, not my actual name. You can always get a hotmail or yahoo address and use that, and then he won’t even have your regular email address. So I’m not worried about my privacy.

An computer security expert from McAfee once said you should have about 20 different email addresses. Why not at least have a few?

Can’t we just give EG the benefit of the doubt and move on?

*What* odds would be only 10%?

If 10% of the people are called Williams, and if we took a person from the general population at *random*, there would be a 10% chance their name is Williams.

But Joyanna is not a person selected at random. She is a Williams (so she says, and we assume it to be true). So the % of Williams’s is not relevant. The relevant question is not what are the odds of *having* that name, but what are the odds of *guessing* that name. That depends on were the name is on the list of common names (i.e. where it is on the list I cited) not on how many people actually have that name.

For example, let’s take the name Smith. According to the link I cited above, there are about 3 million Smiths in the USA. That’s out of a population of say, 300 million. i.e. about 1% are Smiths.

But, if I had to guess the name of a person at random, I would choose Smith every time, even though only 1% of the people are Smiths, because I know Smith is the most common name. In other words, I’d choose Smith 100% of the time, even though I know only 1% are Smiths.

Ask someone who has not seen the list to guess the name of a person at random, they would likely choose something like Smith, Jones, Brown, or maybe Williams, because they know these are common names. The name Smith would could up a lot more than 1% of the time even though only 1% of the people are Smiths. So there will be a disproportionate number of people guessing Smith.

So the key is what names will people guess. And that depends on what people perceive to be a common name. That in turn depends a lot on where the name ranks on the list.

The example of the 6 sided die is not valid here because it’s about what names come to *mind*.

If I asked people to pick any number from 1 to 1000, I’d bet that the numbers 3 or 7 would come up more often that say 421 or 7942, because 3 and 7 are more ‘popular’ with people. But if I had a computer generate the numbers at random (or if I had a 1000 sided die), the numbers 3, 7, 421, and 7942 would all have an equal chance of coming up.

The computer and the die do not work like the human mind. The human mind will pick 3, 7 or Smith or Williams more often that you would expect them to come up by pure chance. Because these numbers and names are more popular, they come to mind more often. The list I used is merely an indication that Williams is a very popular name.

Also, Williams is more similar to Adams that Smith, Johnson, Jones, Brown, Davis, or any of the others in the top 10.

Mike LaSalle has every man’s back here, as near as I can tell.

He gives more than he takes.

That is rare, indeed.

I’m curious about how it will all evolve.

You?

Yes, it is.

Could you please name ten (that’s charitable, don’t you think?) –

INVENTIONS.

By women?

That affect and benefit your daily life.

As a man.

(And please do not use anything by Madame Currie.)

Go for it!

Apologies are hard to come by, so I will attempt to push-start the process by saying I am sorry if I have offended EG by suggesting that he ‘investigated’ Joyanna, and sorry if so many noses were put out of joint. Offence wasn’t intended but I guess it came with the questioning of the privacy issue.

As for it being like a false accusation, and by implication I am being accused of making a false accusation (!) well, I am not offended by that one, having really been falsely accused before myself, I can see a huge difference. So no aplogy for that one. Sorry.

I am astonished and delighted at the turn of the conversation to probability and game theory, and the sortie into Freud am Jungland. MND has a great reputation for generating so many twists and turns in its threads, from many wonderful minds, including EG’s, but it does tend to depart from the point. I am sorry that EG doesn’t want to have a beer with me. (The beer offer is still open old fella)

I am sorry that EG doesn’t see the point. But EG doesn’t have to be sorry as there are quite a few who don’t see EG’s points either so there is a balance achieved somewhere, I am sure. Almost sure. Possibly. I’m working out the odds that there is an equilibrium in all this somewhere out past the Andromeda Galaxy or maybe in the Implicate Order.

EG has better acolytes than Christ, that’s odds on. I wonder if Jesus would have been pleased if St Peter had gone all around the traps when asked if he knew JC, instead of simply denying it. What interpretations the theologists would have had to come up with. Maybe Peter should have tried the ‘name out of the unseen’ trick. Its a good one. It would have had those centurions scratching their heads that’s for sure. Chap 23 v.9 “Yeah, they did scratch their heads in wonderment and weleased Woger”

This mix up of ‘guess the commonest name’ and shove it into conversation even though irrelevant to the arguement, could so easily come unstuck if Joyanna’s maiden name was Zwiklovsky. If you are going to play the odds at 50/50 its not much of a fun time, but 10,426:1, would have been SO impressive. I might even have fallen down on my knees infront of EG myself and begged forgiveness.

EG, a simple apology would have done, even for inadvertently causing grief. Is it so hard? I am a little incredulous with the guesswork you offer but then who knows what pops into view in the great unseen.

An arguement has been put forward that EG is trying hard to form a sound MRA set of principles that aid men achieve some status. I admire EG. I have said it before and may even say it again sometimes. He is busy generating much thoughful consideration of men and woman in the world, much of it positive. That doesn’t mean he is always right in everything of course. Few of us get there every time. His lists of things to do – as other’s lists do, do help men. Its a painful process, getting to the start line. But is this an excuse for his attack?

But folks. I am sorry that hardly anyone has stuck to the point. What of YOUR privacy here?

Mike has come in for unfair and unreasonable stick in some of the posts here. This is the Mike who has carefully maintained the privacy of every one of us, while enabling a full and free flow of good conversation. He has not seen the need to disclose odd bits of personal info about any of us, despite having cupboards bulging with the stuff.

And he expects us to be adult about it. He expects us to trust him. He hasn’t let any of us down. He demonstrates his trustworthyness – indeed his masculinity. Still he gets stick ! Astonishing. EG has let us down. Not a hanging offence, but offensive nevertheless. he wriggles like a worm on a hook. Not manly. Yet he is defended. Not astonishing. Sad.

In effect if I rolled a 6 sided die, and hid the result behind my hand you would have a 16.6% chance of guessing correctly, even if you were only guessing between numbers 4,5,6, or only 5,6.

If Williams is not her name, there’s no reason to believe he investigated her and came up with Williams.

It does seem strange with all of his postings about character and a godly path that EG would investigate somebody.

One last point, just because Williams is third in genealogy doesn’t mean that he had a 33% chance of getting it right. It would have depended upon Joyanna’s chance of HAVING that name. If Williams represents 10% of the surnames out there, he would have had a 10% chance of getting the bullseye.

Although Williams is still way more common then I woulda thought.

I am satisfied that no ill was intended.

I also think there’s an element of synchronicity at work.

So EG’s claim is not as improbable as it sounds.

http://genealogy.about.com/library/weekly/aa_common_surnames.htm

casting off the shackles of psychological castration is an amasingly liberateing experience…I recommend it to all!!!

and jackal…the good women who want to help us should and do understand some men are quite torn up (and at times express it)about the injustices that have come upon them..